Hi John,
It was more the shift from form to experience, but I am just playing with the idea. So maybe synthesize two different forms into experience. Btw, Luce Irigaray is labeled as a feminist, philosopher, linguist, psychoanalyst, sociologist and cultural theorist. Quite a mouthful. I've only just heard of her. I like what she said about the difference in a woman's language. What she said resonated. At least it is something to think about. It also made me notice the different way that Mark and I handled Adrie's disparaging another poster's contribution. That would be different, not right or wrong. Marsha On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:12 AM, John Carl wrote: > Marsha, > > I think you're on to something here. But I don't agree that going from the > classic/romantic split to the dynamic/static was the key value of Lila > compared to ZAMM. > > I do agree with the author, that Lila is the more important book, > philosophically. But imo, it's because Lila fully encapsulates that > classic/romantic synthesis whereas ZAMM simply describes it. > > In another thread, I mentioned to Craig that we can't logically prove > reality is good, but since it plainly is, this is a problem with logical > proof, not reality. I think your spinning box sheds more light on the > subject, gets closer to what I feel is the right way of looking at things, > than I've read in countless meticulously logical arguments that I've come up > with. > > So thanks for that. > > John ___ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
